Handholdability of medium format cameras

[Bormental]

I'm extremely skeptical just how many handheld MF shots are truly sharp in the sense of being able to withstand any serious degree of enlargement.

Thank you for saying that. I've been watching this thread in disbelief, as if my original question made no sense. Resolution is one of the major reasons to shoot medium format and I suspect a lot of peeps here are throwing it out the window.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you for saying that. I've been watching this thread in disbelief, as if my original question made no sense. Resolution is one of the major reasons to shoot medium format and I suspect a lot of peeps here are throwing it out the window.

No, we are comparing it with the results we obtain hand-holding other cameras.
Hand-holding always offers benefits, and always requires compromises.

 

[mshchem]

You would be shocked what you can do with a 35mm camera on a tripod. Mirror locked up, high end glass at f5.6 or 8. Especially with a technical film or TMX in XTOL.

 

[wiltw]

Thank you for saying that. I've been watching this thread in disbelief, as if my original question made no sense. Resolution is one of the major reasons to shoot medium format and I suspect a lot of peeps here are throwing it out the window.

One needs to first remember that :
the 135 format Rule of Thumb, 1/FL = minimum hand holdable speed is actually based upon
the Medium format format Rule of Thumb, 1/FL = minimum hand holdable speed.

There was a failure to modify the basic rule equation by the relative smaller format size of 135 vs. medium format (a practice that was put into play for FF digital vs. APS-C digital...the speed was multipled by 0.6x in that case.) There was no multiplier used in going from MF formiula to 135 formula...it should have been factored by about 0.55x that time, too!

So if you consider the 'normal FL' for each format 1/50 is supposed just as steady as 1/75 on MF, but it in fact is NOT!...since the 135 format is magnified on print by 1.8X or greater to achieve the final print, any visible shake is magnified as well. Ergo the need for the faster shutter speed for 135 to be 'the same' as MF.
So any inherent 'increased difficulty' in hand holding MF is neutralized in the overly optimistic hand holding speed of 135, when the format-to-format comparison is done.

 

[mshchem]

One needs to first remember that :
the 135 format Rule of Thumb, 1/FL = minimum hand holdable speed is actually based upon
the Medium format format Rule of Thumb, 1/FL = minimum hand holdable speed.

There was a failure to modify the basic rule equation by the relative smaller format size of 135 vs. medium format (a practice that was put into play for FF digital vs. APS-C digital...the speed was multipled by 0.6x in that case.) There was no multiplier used in going from MF formiula to 135 formula...it should have been factored by about 0.55x that time, too!

So if you consider the 'normal FL' for each format 1/50 is supposed just as steady as 1/75 on MF, but it in fact is NOT!...since the 135 format is magnified on print by 1.8X or greater to achieve the final print, any visible shake is magnified as well. Ergo the need for the faster shutter speed for 135 to be 'the same' as MF.
So any inherent 'increased difficulty' in hand holding MF is neutralized in the overly optimistic hand holding speed of 135, when the format-to-format comparison is done.

Very well said.

 

[Bormental]

@wiltw right, but the purpose of a MF camera is not to match 135 resolution but to exceed it and print bigger. There's no point in having an equivalence here, that's what I meant by saying "throwing out the window".

Why lug around a heavy camera with 10 frames on a roll to end up with the same effective resolution as a poketable Leica due to shake blur? This makes such MF camera not handholdable, regardless how much it weights.

In my case, judging each format by its potential, I find that Fuji GF670, despite being lightweight, is fa-a-a-a-a-ar behind my M6 in handholdability department, but C330s is very close, despite being a brick.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Wanted to explore an interesting (for me) topic: which MF cameras are the best for shooting without a tripod?

Some background:

My first medium format camera was Fuji GF670. I was agonizing over this choice. It was **expensive** but I felt that portability was the most important thing for me. And yes, indeed, this camera is more portable than any of my old digital SLR gear. I was hoping to stick to "one camera one lens" here, but I quickly discovered that I need a LOT of light to shoot with it. For whatever reason, I just can't hold it steady enough for anything under 1/250 to be blur-free. It's the combination of being lightweight and awkward to hold due to the bellows...

My second MF purchase surprised me. I wanted to get a medium-format SLR and I was researching Hasselblad V-system at the time. Plenty of people complained about difficulties of getting sharp photos with a Hassy without a tripod, citing mirror/curtain movements, so I decided to settle on the 645 format instead, hoping for less mirror shake. I ended up getting a Mamiya 645 Pro, which was a pleasant surprise: it's quite steady and on par with my 35mm cameras, i.e. 1/focal-length rule works well on it.

My 3rd camera was the exact opposite of the Fuji. If the GF670 was light, expensive and "jerky", the Mamiya C330 is cheap, heavy and steady. I am regularly dropping the shutter speed to 1/60 at the same focal length as the Fuji. And, despite being the bulkiest & heaviest, it is (surprise!) actually the most handholdable camera I have!

In the end, quite ironically, the most lightweight camera in my collection ended up needing a tripod the most, and the heaviest camera is actually most useful in low light situations!

How do my experiences map to yours?

I tried a few MF cameras. I ened up and kept the following: The Mamiya 6 for travel photography because, it's very portable and the lenses are ou of this world sharp. For studio and landscape photography, I find theHasselblad V system unbeatable. The camera body feels like an extension of hand and arm, the lenses are top and it is heavy enough to shoot it without camera shake down to a 1/60s. otherwise.a good monopod does wonders.

 

[MattKing]

@wiltw right, but the purpose of a MF camera is not to match 135 resolution but to exceed it and print bigger.

That is one purpose, but not the only one. As an example, I much prefer using some of my medium format equipment when I take informal portraits - resolution isn't really a priority there.
No matter the format, hand-held shooting involves a potential for resolution compromise. All of my cameras spend time in my hands, and other times on my tripods or otherwise braced and stabilized.
I get results I like from all of them. And sometimes they disappoint - usually due to operator error.
The ones with larger formats have a bigger upside when it comes to maximum potential resolution, but only a small percentage of photos need that.

 

[Helge]

I’m tempted to quote the great computer architect Robert Barton here: “Good ideas don’t often scale”.
That goes for most material things, creatures and mechanisms.
It’s never easy free or easy to scale things.
On the other hand, some things might work better in some respects at different scales.

This is not something I have thought very hard about, just loose conjecture, but perhaps the Barnack formats popularity and seemingly ideal size has to do with it very approximately matching the human retina in square centimeter size.
It has the resolution and emphasis at the scale where it matters, so to speak?
To a giant a medium format camera would seem like a 135 camera.
That’s not to say medium format (and indeed LF to a much greater degree) doesn’t provide a very interesting and alluring slightly different view.

 

[removed account4]

technically perfect photographs are sometimes boring.

 

[Bormental]

This is not something I have thought very hard about, just loose conjecture, but perhaps the Barnack formats popularity and seemingly ideal size has to do with it very approximately matching the human retina in square centimeter size.

Agreed. Getting a bunch of medium-format cameras made me appreciate my 35mm gear even more, especially when loaded with marvels like Delta 100 or Portra 160. I like the occasional luxury of medium-format tones, when I'm blessed with a good light that is capable of producing them, but I always find myself restricted by the narrow shutter speed range: 1/125 to 1/500, just 3 stops! Can't go lower due to shake blur, can't go higher... well because there's no higher.

When I started this thread I was hoping to explore the lower-end of that speed range, to see if anything else performs as well as Mamiya C330.

 

[wiltw]

@wiltw right, but the purpose of a MF camera is not to match 135 resolution but to exceed it and print bigger. There's no point in having an equivalence here, that's what I meant by saying "throwing out the window".

Why lug around a heavy camera with 10 frames on a roll to end up with the same effective resolution as a poketable Leica due to shake blur? This makes such MF camera not handholdable, regardless how much it weights.

In my case, judging each format by its potential, I find that Fuji GF670, despite being lightweight, is fa-a-a-a-a-ar behind my M6 in handholdability department, but C330s is very close, despite being a brick.

I submit that your fundamental premise is flawed. A bridal couple wants an 8x10 print no matter what format is used as the source. They wanted a 16" wide center spread photo in the middle of their wedding album, regardless if it was shot on 135 or medium format. Simple fact.

That is not to say that no one wanted to make a print 2x as large (single dimension) with a larger neg. If I had tried to made a 20x24 wall print for one wedding couple using 135, it would have been poor in quality; from 645 neg it was a mere 11.9X, well under the visibility of grain.

 

[Bormental]

It's like you're trying really hard not to hear what I'm saying. Just scroll up, my response to your message has already been posted.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

technically perfect photographs are sometimes boring.

This could be the best reply in this thread, or even on APUG!

Hasselblad SWC on Tri-X @ 1000 asa, full open aperture, handheld at a to slow shutter speed, but what a light ("In die Schatten steht sie das Licht" dixit Dürer).

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Somehow we went from what MF can be handheld to at the same time attaining TACK sharp output. For that there are no compromises and barring use of high shutter speeds and shorter lenses, there is no camera that will do that hand held. And that would still make a long discussion on a value of 'tack sharp' in photography in general.

I know I can shoot RB67 handheld with 127 and below with satisfying output, but RB67 has one of the best release systems out there so it is not a surprise. This is no speed shooting, but still no tripod. I am quite happy using Bronica EC hand held (which, BTW, is far different than the S line). I agree ETRS is easy to hand hold especially with speed grip, but I also like Mamiya M645 in my hands or Pentax 645. Pentax 67 is not though.

TLRs are such a different breed, they were meant for use from hand and trouble starts only when Mamiya gets a 180/250 on it. But as all TLRs and RFs the only thing that is moving during exposure is the shutter ... any shaky problems are the technique of holding it not the camera itself. Of course so long as we're NOT after "grain level" evaluations.

If the idea is to get maximum sharpness, hand holding is not the way with any camera in majority of situations. But in a lot of cases it is THE hand holding that makes the photograph work, even if it fails, sometimes miserably, a technical lab evaluation.

 

[halfaman]

I'm extremely skeptical just how many handheld MF shots are truly sharp in the sense of being able to withstand any serious degree of enlargement. My Fuji 6x9 RF's with 90mm lens hand-holds even better than my Nikon; but anything below 1/125th, say 1/60th, is only about a 50% success rate. If I were younger, I might get away with one speed slower. With my P67, the 105 lens is the longest I can work with handheld, and need 1/250 or preferably 1/500th - fine for aerial photo purposes, but no substitute for a real tripod on land. Posting web images doesn't generally prove anything in this respect - a smashed bug on a windshield would look just as sharp on that small of a scale. Sometimes I get lucky and pull off a decent 6x9 RF exposure at 1/30th. But anything below 1/60th with the P67 is going to get affected by mirror slap.

That is very pesimistic in my experience. I have shot a P67II and the 105 mm at 1/30th having sharp 8x10'' prints without reservations, and I will not hesitate to do them bigger. Some of them were taken sit down (on a subway) and others standing in my "slow shutter" mode where I try to mimick a tripod (generous legs aperture, back straight and vertical, serene mind and shot after air intake). It is not succesfull on 100% of the cases but I would say the success rate is above 50%. On the other hand, with 1/15th is almost impossible for me to get rid of blur and get acceptable sharpness. I shoot 1/60th without any special care in my body position.

I have used recently the really heavy 300 mm f/4 ED handheld at 1/500th for landscapes and full body portraits, all photographs are tack sharp. I will not recommend it though but because of the weight, barely tolerable and only for some minutes.

When you try the MLU mechanism it is clear that most of the vibration you feel during a P67II standard operation comes from the mirror return. Mirror flip-up and shutter curtain movement are quite smooth for a 6x7 SLR camera. The mirror return happens after the exposition is finished, so it does not affect the image sharpness.

A curiosity. I have a Bronica SQ-Ai I use with the motorized film advance grip, the automatic film advance is so abrupt that moves my hand in the focusing ring. All shots are as sharp as it gets... if I readjust the focus after a shot.

 

[guangong]

Putting technical aspects behind in this argument, all comes down to the fact that the OP and some others find holding a camera steady hand held is very difficult, especially anything above 35mm rf camera. Minox may also be too difficult. With the exception of LF view cameras, all cameras have been designed to be hand held. I doubt that any camera made for marketplace was initially conceived for extra long lenses, so these necessitate tripod as compromise.
So it comes down to physical ability, and the harder they try to hold camera (gun, violin, golf, screwdriver) the more application of force and tension, the task becomes ever less successful.
And of course there is personal preference. When first on market I went off to camera store to buy either the Linhof MF press camera or Pentax 67, but after handling both in store decided they were not for me. However, there are a lot of happy Pentax users here.
So the original OP query as I understood it, was because of his inability to hold Fuji GF670 properly, what about other MF cameras. Nothing about resolution, etc.
Photography is much like any other art...some pictures work as sketches, others as highly finished. And willingness to take a risk when conditions are not optimum. For me, it’s not about passing lens resolution tests. Fifty years ago I took a blurry, out-of -focus shot of my German Shepherd running. Today it reminds me of her spirit much better than a refined portrait.

 

[BrianShaw]

Split the difference... consider a monopod.

 

[guangong]

Split the difference... consider a monopod.

Wise comment. Very handy. Especially when shooting Super 8. Used Gitzo for years. Now have very substantial one that has removable knob handle and can serve as walking stick

 

[Donald Qualls]

And if you're on a budget, you can make one (fixed height) for about $8 in parts from the local Big Box store. Length of 3/4" plastic pipe, pair or caps, 1/4-20 carriage bolt, nut, and a wing nut (to snug up against the camera's bushing). Trim the pipe to get the eyepiece height right, and the thing will double as a walking stick.

 

[removed account4]

This could be the best reply in this thread, or even on APUG!

View attachment 255833

Hasselblad SWC on Tri-X @ 1000 asa, full open aperture, handheld at a to slow shutter speed, but what a light ("In die Schatten steht sie das Licht" dixit Dürer).

Thanks Philippe-Georges:
My dad told me years ago that perfect is the enemy of good ( or something similar ).. never really forgot that..., I'm glad sharpness and resolution fiends have found their happy place, we all need a happy place..

Stay well,
John

 

[BrianShaw]

And if you're on a budget, you can make one (fixed height) for about $8 in parts from the local Big Box store. Length of 3/4" plastic pipe, pair or caps, 1/4-20 carriage bolt, nut, and a wing nut (to snug up against the camera's bushing). Trim the pipe to get the eyepiece height right, and the thing will double as a walking stick.

Your ingenuity never ceases to amaze me!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Thanks, @BrianShaw ; they do say necessity is a mother...

 

[fs999]

I'm voting for a Pentax 645N with an Arsat 30mm F3.5 fisheye. Very handy for selfies

 

[MattKing]

Your ingenuity never ceases to amaze me!

Me too. I expect that whatever Donald uses as a workshop would also amaze me as well.